โWho are these atheists, anyway?โ is the fourth and final part in the Atheism is not all itโs cracked up to be series by Gavan O’ Farrell, who works as a public sector lawyer.
This final Part on the series on atheism is less concerned with argument and more focused on who weโre talking about (and to).
โNon-theistsโ vary
Iโve decided now to refer to โnon-theistsโ, as non-belief in God ranges from frank atheism (โThere is no Godโ) to agnosticism (โI donโt knowโ) with each position having its own spectrum and labels not being applied consistently.ย Non-theists sometimes describe themselves as โrationalistsโ, โrealistsโ, โscepticsโ, โhumanistsโ or โsecularistsโ.ย However, they all reside in the โempiricist boxโ (see Part 1).
Needless to say, non-theists vary because they are human beings with myriad characteristics and experiences.ย I can mention some.
The most serious non-theists are those atheists who are intellectually attached to the evidence argument: if there were a God, it would have been proved by now.ย Their demeanour varies: some triumphalist and rude, some civil.
Ordinarily, atheists are a smallish subset of non-theists but, in this era of maximum self-expression, the number is probably artificially inflated.
The most visible non-theists are those who have a strong dislike of religion, especially Christianity.
This dislike may arise from their understanding of the general and historical conduct of the Church โ sometimes a genuine misunderstanding that can be treated with information.
Illumination is not effective when the misunderstanding is deliberate โ due to prejudice or even organised enmity.ย Socialists, for example, oppose Christianity as a matter of ideology, will contradict and abuse it at every opportunity and intend to bring it down.ย This stance can be found in many places, people and discussions:ย it doesnโt always call itself Socialism but, on the other hand, the Socialism brand is being laundered and relaunched despite its appallingly murderous history.
Or the dislike may be the result of bad experiences within the Church โ a story which needs to be seriously listened to before mentioning โbabies and bathwaterโ.ย Many are angry: mere indignation for some, while for others it is real hurt.
This anger is sometimes directed at God, not at religion.ย If a believer is angry with God, and doesnโt address the situation properly, the anger can take them far away โ eg I might โpunish Godโ by proclaiming that I donโt believe in Him.
Determined personal sovereignty and autonomy is another path to non-theism: โI donโt need a God to feel significant or secureโ.ย Or, โIโm very clever and educated, Iโll take it from hereโ.ย Or simply, โNo-oneโs the boss of me!โย More attitude than rationale.
Others were raised as non-theists and, like some Christians, think habitually and speak by rote.
Some non-theists call themselves โscepticsโ, but I have found that they are typically half-sceptics โ sceptical about God and the supernatural but not about their own claims about rationality and evidence (or the social and moral positions put forward by the Left).
Most non-theists are agnostics.ย This position is more understandable than a dogmatic โAinโt no Godโ.
On the other hand, โI donโt knowโ is often a cover for โI donโt careโ.ย It seems strange not to care that there might be Someone who made the cosmos and is in touch with humanity, but we continue to hear โIโll cross that bridge when I get to itโ.
For some, โIโll cross that bridgeโ is another pretext for avoiding a difficult issue.ย We should recognise that delaying consideration (and the โriskโ of believing) is understandable, just like not wanting God to exist.
Some people prefer agnosticism because they believe it can accommodate spirituality.ย (Oddly, even some atheists are into this.)ย Of course, this โspiritualityโ falls short of belief in a God who is a Person โ especially, a Person with, shall we say, โstrong opinionsโ (who needs that?!).ย I think theyโre trying to have their cake and eat it:
A yearning for โthe spiritualโ is extremely common and entirely natural (a hint at the real yearning for God).
However, with no connection with God or the supernatural, โspiritualityโ is just a species of strong emotion.
True atheism โ โtruth is about reason and evidenceโ โ is hard to market. No-one wants to think of themselves as a left hemisphere on a stick, so no wonder non-theist advocates use hard-sell.ย Enhancing non-theism with โspiritualityโ is smart marketing, but thatโs all it is.
At risk of stating the obvious, a conversation with a non-theist is not a conversation with the embodiment of some ideas but with a fabulously complex and unique human being who is in Godโs image and likeness, is loved by God, is in humanityโs shared predicament and has an irrefutable claim on everyoneโs love.
Atheism and politics
Visiting an atheist site, I once asked โAre there any conservative atheists or are you all Lefties?โ.ย I was told, โIf youโre smart enough to be an atheist, youโre probably smart enough to be progressiveโ.
Like much of academia, the media, the education system,much of government and parts of the Church, popular non-theism seems to have been infiltrated and largely taken over by โprogressivesโ โ to be politically allied with third-wave feminism, the LGBTIQ lobby and other โdiversityโ lobbies, and united with these in protecting Islam from criticism.
It is strange that such independent thinkers (a claim which non-theists often make to distinguish themselves from Christians) should all of a sudden be of one mind about such difficult and complex issues, especially when you consider that โ
trans activists ignore and often oppose the โfactualityโ of science, which serious non-theists ordinarily value; and
in an Islamic theocracy, non-theists would fare as badly as feminists and LGBTIQ folk.
As far as I can tell, all these groups have in common is a, shall we say, โwarm dislikeโ of Christianity.ย I donโt know how else to make sense of this outlandish alliance.
Some non-theists are seriously dedicated to reality and reason and have avoided being ensnared by these movements.ย It is possible to have positive ethical and political conversations with these more independent non-theists.ย There is likely to be mutual acceptance of the starting proposition that human beings are highly, and equally, valuable โ if the non-theists donโt deride our โdeludedโ reasons for believing this and we donโt berate them for having no reason at all to believe it (see Part 2).ย From that starting-point, a lot of positive discussion and common action are possible.
Some very good books
Before closing, I must bring to your attention four excellent myth-busting books that together respond to most charges laid at the door of Christianity:
In these times of rising geopolitical chaos, the need for mutual understanding between cultures has never been more urgent. Religious differences are seen as fuel for violence and warfare. In these pages, one of our greatest writers on religion, Karen Armstrong, amasses a sweeping history of humankind to explore the perceived connection between war and the worldโs great creedsโand to issue a passionate defense of the peaceful nature of faith.
With unprecedented scope, Armstrong looks at the whole history of each traditionโnot only Christianity and Islam, but also Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Judaism. Religions, in their earliest days, endowed every aspect of life with meaning, and warfare became bound up with observances of the sacred. Modernity has ushered in an epoch of spectacular violence, although, as Armstrong shows, little of it can be ascribed directly to religion. Nevertheless, she shows us how and in what measure religions came to absorb modern belligerenceโand what hope there might be for peace among believers of different faiths in our time.
A recent string of popular-level books written by the New Atheists have leveled the accusation that the God of the Old Testament is nothing but a bully, a murderer, and a cosmic child abuser. This viewpoint is even making inroads into the church. How are Christians to respond to such accusations? And how are we to reconcile the seemingly disconnected natures of God portrayed in the two testaments?
In this timely and readable book, apologist Paul Copan takes on some of the most vexing accusations of our time, including:
God is arrogant and jealous God punishes people too harshly God is guilty of ethnic cleansing God oppresses women God endorses slavery Christianity causes violence and more
Copan not only answers God’s critics, he also shows how to read both the Old and New Testaments faithfully, seeing an unchanging, righteous, and loving God in both.
The โmarvelousโ (Reza Aslan, bestselling author ofย Zealot),ย New York Timesย bestselling story of how Christianity became the dominant religion in the West.
How did a religion whose first believers were twenty or so illiterate day laborers in a remote part of the empire became the official religion of Rome, converting some thirty million people in just four centuries? Inย The Triumph of Christianity, early Christian historian Bart D. Ehrman weaves the rigorously-researched answer to this question โinto a vivid, nuanced, and enormously readable narrativeโ (Elaine Pagels, National Book Award-winning author ofย The Gnostic Gospels), showing how a handful of charismatic characters used a brilliant social strategy and an irresistible message to win over hearts and minds one at a time.
This โhumane, thoughtful and intelligentโ book (The New York Times Book Review) upends the way we think about the single most important cultural transformation our world has ever seenโone that revolutionized art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, economics, and law.
Among all the great transitions that have marked Western history, only oneโthe triumph of Christianityโcan be called in the fullest sense a โrevolutionโ
In this provocative book one of the most brilliant scholars of religion today dismantles distorted religious โhistoriesโ offered up by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and other contemporary critics of religion and advocates of atheism. David Bentley Hart provides a bold correction of the New Atheistsโs misrepresentations of the Christian past, countering their polemics with a brilliant account of Christianity and its message of human charity as the most revolutionary movement in all of Western history.
Hart outlines how Christianity transformed the ancient world in ways we may have forgotten: bringing liberation from fatalism, conferring great dignity on human beings, subverting the cruelest aspects of pagan society, and elevating charity above all virtues. He then argues that what we term the โAge of Reasonโ was in fact the beginning of the eclipse of reasonโs authority as a cultural value. Hart closes the book in the present, delineating the ominous consequences of the decline of Christendom in a culture that is built upon its moral and spiritual values.
The following article by Alex Penk, first appears appeared on Maxim Institute’s website and is republished here with permission.
Stick it to the man – source brainlesstales.com
Rage against the machine. Stick it to the man. If youโre not for us, youโre against us. Theyโre familiar sayings, and sometimes comforting ones, especially when our nation is in the thick of debate about issues that really fire people upโeuthanasia, cannabis, and most recently, abortion. But while itโs right to feel passionate about these issues, itโs also possible to go too far. In fact, there are signs that we already have. So itโs time to make aโhopefully not too earnestโplea for civility.
Rage against the machine. Stick it to the man. If youโre not for us, youโre against us.
Let me give a couple of examples of the problem. Recently the Labour MP Kieran McAnulty tweeted that heโd been called a Nazi, a liar, a prick, and a bastard after heโd announced that he would support the Abortion Legislation Bill. The Abortion Law Reform Association has a page titled โEmail Your Rage!โ, urging people to email MPs about reform. Thereโs even a button to โBlast Them All!โ by sending one email to all MPs. But while engaging in abuse and fostering rage might provide a short-term high, they do a lot of long-term damage and theyโre wrongโif you want proof, just look at America under President Trump. The antidote is what legal philosopher Jeremy Waldron has called the โchilly virtueโ of civility.
He says that civility involves respect for others, even and especially for people you disagree with deeply. Itโs a โchilly virtueโ because itโs about โformality,โ not feelings. It means being committed to certain rules of engagement, binding ourselves to a procedure for dispute resolution, and accepting the outcome because we know weโll never reach consensus on these issues. Like all virtues, it has to be practised to become part of who we are.
Civility involves respect for others, even and especially for people you disagree with deeply.
Practising it means striving, as Waldron has also said, for a society where โeveryone tries to answer the best, not the worst, that can be made of their opponentsโ positions,โ and โconsider that they might be mistaken and to imagine at any rate what it must be like to hold another viewโ. It means recognising that the โother sideโ arenโt monsters, theyโre people like us with competing views of whatโs good and right, and competing judgments about how to prioritise the goods we do agree on.
So, for example, if you oppose euthanasia, you should recognise that supporters genuinely believe we need this practice to prevent needless suffering and to uphold freedom of choice. If you support euthanasia, you should recognise that opponents are genuinely concerned that it would create a risk of wrongful death, especially for the most vulnerable. To return to Waldron, it means recognising that people we disagree with might be our opponents, but they are not our enemies.
So we should contest these big, divisive issues, and all the others that politics brings our way. We should argue vigorously for our view, and that the other side is wrong, and debate the facts. But we canโt afford to stoop to abuse or rage. We have to be better than that. After all, we still have to live together when these debates are over.
Alex Penk leads the work and mission of Maxim Institute, representing their work in public, and speaking and writing about public leadership โ a topic he studied during his time as a Visiting Fellow at the McDonald Centre at Oxford University in Trinity Term 2016. His previous study includes a Master of Laws from Cambridge University and degrees in law and science from the University of Auckland.
Maxim Institute is an independent think tank, working to promote the dignity of every person in New Zealand, by standing for freedom, justice, and compassion.
The New Zealand Christian Network has a number of major concerns about the proposed liberalisation of New Zealandโs abortion legislation.
What is missing in the proposed new legislation, asserts spokesperson Dr Stuart Lange, is clear evidence of concern to respect and protect the life of those unborn. โHow can politicians say they care about societyโs most vulnerable people, then have this huge blind spot about those most vulnerable of all, unborn children?โ
The existing legislation is less than perfect, and often too loosely applied, but it does at least implicitly seek to balance the health of the mother and the great seriousness of ending an unborn babyโs life.
Those proposing the change say that abortion needs to be โdecriminalisedโ. But that is a misleading argument. Under the current legislation, no woman undergoing a โlawfulโ abortion is ever committing a criminal act. Only abortionists who operate outside of the law commit a crime.
Proponents of the change say that abortion must become simply a โwomanโs health issueโ. But what about the health of the unborn child? Abortion remains an extreme and tragic event, invariably with fatal consequences for one of the two people involved.
The network acknowledges that aborting a baby is often an agonising decision for a woman, and can also have ongoing effects on her well-being.
NZCN believes that current legislation, for all its flaws, is much to be preferred to what is proposed.
It urges members of parliament to vote against what is proposed.
Dr Stuart Lange National Director New Zealand Christian Network
Dr Stuart Langeย โย National Director, New Zealand Christian Network
The Prime Minister of New Zealand has recently expressed the laudable view that we need a world which celebrates the diversity of its citizens and migrants. Absolutely so. People of all sorts of beliefs and worldviews want a society which is compassionate, respectful, just and free. We are right to resist any erosion of those values, and to consider very carefully what laws and behaviour best protects them.
The Christchurch events have raised concerns over on-line โhate speechโ, which among other things helped incite appalling racist violence. The Folau controversy in Australia has opened up other important issues, in New Zealand as well, around freedoms of belief and expression, and whether people should lose their job for expressing (even when they are not at work) beliefs which some find offensive. At the same time, there is currently discussion in Government circles about legislation to prohibit โhate speechโ. It is unclear yet what legislative changes may be proposed.
Protection of โminoritiesโ
It is right that society welcome, respect and protect minorities. That is an expression of a just and humane society. It is unhelpful, though, to give any groups more rights than any other groups. All people should be treated equally, with the same rights and restraints.
The laws of this land need to be neutral, equally respecting the rights of belief and expression for people of all faiths, and of none.
In a changing society, it is increasingly problematical to assume which group is a majority, and which group is a minority, and what may happen later. Muslims and Buddhists, for instance, are both currently minorities. Christianity is often assumed to be the โmajorityโ religion. But recent censuses have put Christian adherence at less than 50%. So are Christians now a minority too? The โsecularโ view is assumed by many to be the only view which should prevail. But is it a majority or a minority? The laws of this land need to be neutral, equally respecting the rights of belief and expression for people of all faiths, and of none.
Prejudice and โhateโ
Discussion around possible legislative change often includes rhetoric about โhateโ. Nobody doubts that true โhateโ is destructive, both for those who are hated and those who hate. In terms of public policy and law, however, the word โhateโ is not a useful word. It is too broad in meaning to be of any use. Human beings can say they โhate itโ when something very trivial happens, or that they โhateโ instant coffee. They can hate evil and injustice. They can harbour in their hearts prejudice or hate against other ethnicities and cultures. Occasionally, human beings can hate others with such vicious, demonic hatred that they actually want to hurt or kill people (as with murderers, terrorists, and genocidal despots such as Hitler). The last of those categories of hate โ that which incites or commits violence โ is clearly abhorrent and evil, and should always be unlawful.
Mild prejudice is not hate. All human beings have at least a little prejudice in them, influencing our views on politics, religion, sports, and many other things. Deep prejudice, however, can be associated with real hate. Racist hatred is especially repugnant, and needs to be actively discouraged. It is irrational, unjust, and cruel. But even the expression of racist views should be unlawful only when it is deliberately seeking to foster contempt and/or to incite racial violence.
Strongly prejudiced opinions can be irritating and offensive. We hear and read them every day, on public and social media. But the risk of being offended is the unavoidable price of freedom of belief and freedom of expression. It would be nice if many people were to tone down their opinions, especially those we disagree with. But there needs to be a high threshold before expressed opinions are deemed either โhatefulโ or unlawful. Society must strenuously protect freedom of belief and expression. Our liberty, our life, our society depend on those freedoms, and when they are curtailed we are letting go far too much.
Society must strenuously protect freedom of belief and expression. Our liberty, our life, our society depend on those freedoms, and when they are curtailed we are letting go far too much.
Politicised language
The word โhateโ has become unhelpfully politicised. For instance, in many circles the meaning of โhateโ appears to have become extended to include the expression of views that do not align with those of a particular community. Clearly, society must defend the right of that community to express and promote their beliefs. Equally, though, society must defend the right of other people to hold and express contrary views, including those beliefs some disagree with or find offensive, such as the belief (which is very widely held, and not just by Christians) that God intended marriage as the union of a man and woman.
To speak against beliefs we disagree with is everyoneโs democratic right, and โ unless we want tyranny โ that right to freedom of belief and expression must cut both ways. To label as โhate speechโ those views we disagree with, and to denigrate those who hold them, looks like vilification. To push for someone to lose their job for expressing their religious beliefs, as has happened with Folau, is a very disturbing encroachment on freedom of belief and expression.
A level playing field
In our multi-cultural, multi-faith society, most Christians do not want or require special privileges for themselves. All they really need is what everyone else needs: a society where there are equal freedoms of belief and expression, and freedom from discrimination, for people of all faiths, and for people of no faith. A society where any person, whether religious or secular, is free to believe and express and live by the tenets of their faith, without fear of censure, or of losing their job, or of public vilification. A society where believing in your creed (Christian, Muslim, or whatever) or publicly quoting your holy book will not lead to getting into trouble with the law, your educational provider, your employer, your professional body, or being censured by the media.ย A society where everyone remains perfectly free to promote both secular views and religious views, without discrimination. A society where anyone may express and advocate any belief about culture, religion, morality, or marriage, without any fear of being labelled as โunsafeโ, just because someone might be offended. ย What do we need to ensure a free society? Freedom of belief and expression for all: a level playing field.
What do we need to ensure a free society?
Freedom of belief and expression for all: a level playing field.
Respect and restraint
Regardless of the laws around public discourse, and how they might be shaped, both secular people and people of faith do well to speak and act with goodwill and respect for all others, out of a sense of common humanity, and a desire to preserve the peace of our free and diverse society. We should speak the truth as we see it, but do so with kindness and respect. Being deliberately offensive has never been good behaviour. Christians, who believe that Jesus is the perfect revelation and embodiment of God, have a superb example to follow: he spoke enduring truth, with infinite grace and compassion.
Dr Stuart Lange National Director, New Zealand Christian Network
Pentecost is a good moment to take a reality check concerning any lurking idolatry of nationalism in our hearts.
The events described by Luke in the opening chapters of The Acts of the Apostles remind us that the end goal of Godโs purposes in human history is the ingathering of a multi-ethnic global church: โfrom every tribe, language, people and nationโ, as John writes in his Revelation (5:9).
The outpouring of the Spirit birthed this โrainbowโ church when Jews and converts, including Cretans and Arabs, from โevery nation under heavenโ, heard the disciples praising God in the languages of their lands of residence. So Peter stood up to explain that what everyone was witnessing was what the prophet Joel had foretold would happen in โthe last daysโ.
Clearly we have been in the last days therefore ever since Pentecost. Also clearly, this was only the start of the fulfilment of this prophecy. The Spirit is yet to be poured out on all flesh. There is still much more to comeโsomething that should excite us.
It should also caution us against the sort of religious nationalism being preached from political platforms on both sides of the Atlantic these days. We live somewhere between Acts chapter 2 and Revelation chapter 5, as part of the process of a church becoming increasingly multi-cultural. The New Jerusalem will be multi-racial and multi-lingual, all focused on the One who will reconcile all things under heaven and on earth.
Inclusive
Yet too often we see believers making the same mistake for which Israel was rebuked by the prophets and by Jesus himself: ethno-centrism. Instead of embracing Godโs purposes for all peoples, Israel focused too often on being the Chosen. Too often they adopted an โIsrael firstโ policy. But they forgot what they had been chosen for: to bless all the peoples of the world, and be a light to the peoples.
Here is a sober warning for those tempted to embrace a religious nationalism โto preserve our Christian heritageโ. The gospel is inclusive, intended for all peoples. It is not the exclusive right of westerners. We are better people when we commit to the welfare of others, that is to โloving our neighboursโ. We are better nations when we promote the common good of the community of nations, not an ethnic nationalism which places one nation over others as a political goal.
As Christians, we strive to follow the exclusive claims of the gospel. Yet those of us living in countries shaped by ChristianityโOrthodox, Catholic or Protestantโoften assume that the marriage of faith and nationalism is good and biblical. For โChristian nationalismโ has roots back in the Constantinian conversion of Rome to Christianity, or even further to the Old Testament covenant between God and Israel. At different stages of history, Christians have claimed a โdivine instrumentโ, โmanifest destinyโ, or โlight to the nationsโ callingโfrom Constantineโs Roman Empire through to Charlemagneโs Holy Roman Empire, Holy Orthodox Russia, Britain versus Spain, Afrikaners in South Africa and the United States.
Catholics are generally less vulnerable than Protestants to the temptations of a โGod and countryโ mentality, being conscious of belonging to a โcatholicโ (meaning โuniversalโ) Church, rather than identifying with one particular nation like the Church of England or the Dutch Reformed Church. And yet today in Catholic nations like Hungary, Poland and Italy, religious nationalism threatens to further undermine the foundations of free and open society in the name of โpreserving our Christian heritageโ.
Chaplain
Eastern Orthodox Churches however tend to closely identify with their ethnic nationalities: Greek Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, and so on. Church-state relations in the Orthodox world have
always be based on the concept of symphonia or harmony, which often meant the church became the chaplain rather than prophet to the state.
Too often we assume nations have always been around and are the God-designed unit of human community. We quote Acts 17:26 about God having โmade from one man every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands.โ But nation-states as we see them on our world map today are recent developments, as opposed to ethne (peoples), the word used in Acts 17. The French Revolution set off a wave of nationalism across Europe sparking revolutions which still continue to affect this continent. The twentieth century has been described as โa century of nations and nationalismโ, a โbloody religion whose victims dwarf in number the casualties of the crusadesโ, โa reaction against historic Christianity, against the universal mission of Christโ.
Pentecost emboldened the disciples to declare to the authorities: โWe must obey God rather than menโ (Acts 5:29). May the Spirit embolden us also to stand for truth, love and justice, and for Godโs purposes for all peoples.
Jeff Fountain is director of the Schuman Centre for European Studies, affiliated with the University of the Nations. Originally from New Zealand, Jeff has lived in Europe for 38 years and carries a Dutch passport. He was director of Youth With A Mission Europe for 20 years and chairs the Hope For Europe Round Table. Jeff writes an email column called Weekly Wordย and has written several books includingย Living as People of Hopeย andย Deeply Rooted.
As WEA member alliances seek to strengthen religious freedom in their respective countries, U.N. mechanisms and bodies are proving to be an important medium to amplify their respective voices, and their impact. Below you will find an overview of some of our appeals and activities at the Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva in recent months.
In March, in a statement read before more than one hundred international diplomats gathered at the HRC, we called on the government of SRI LANKA to revoke the 2008 Circular related to the construction of places of worship that curtailed the rights of religious minorities and subjected them to harassment. (Written statement submitted together with the National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka; Oral statement together with Christian Solidarity Worldwide; video).
We called on both INDIA and PAKISTAN to repeal anti-conversion and anti-blasphemy legislation respectively, to hold their law enforcement officials accountable when they fail to protect religious minorities, and to counter the stigmatization and hate against religious minorities. (Written statement submitted together with the Evangelical Fellowship of India; oral statement; video)
Together with LโEglise Protestante dโAlgรฉrie, we called on the authorities of ALGERIA to re-open all churches closed since November 2017. (Written statement in French)
We urged the government of MALAYSIA to ensure the wellbeing and safety of all religious workers and the freedom to carry out their duties without intimidation or threat, and we called on Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad to order new police investigations into the abduction of Pastor Koh and the disappearances of three religious activists. (Oral statement; video)
On April 3, Malaysiaโs Human Rights Commission issued a report that, for the first time, accused State agents of the abduction of Pastor Koh in 2017. The National Evangelical Christian Fellowship of Malaysia issued a statement calling for the immediate investigation of all parties involved in the disappearances.
We appealed to the government of IRAQ to officially recognize the evangelical churches and grant them legal status. (Report)
We called on VIET NAM to review the 2016 Law on Belief and Religion, to protect the right of ethnic minorities to change religion, and to stop harassment, oppression and violence against Hmong Christians and other minority religious groups. (Report)
We reiterated that peace in the CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC cannot take place without accountability for war crimes and justice. (Oral statement in French)
During a debate at the HRC on the mitigation and countering of risingnationalist populism, we affirmed that Christianity means loving our neighbors and welcoming the stranger, and we expressed concern that so-called Christian values have been leveraged to foster hatred and discrimination against those adhering to other religions, or from other nationalities and regions of the world. (Video)
During the same period, we met with diplomatic missions, U.N. representatives and other stakeholders, to convey more widely the messages and requests of our member alliances.
Iโve decided now to refer to โnon-theistsโ, as non-belief in God ranges from frank atheism (โThere is no Godโ) to agnosticism (โI donโt knowโ) with each position having its own spectrum and labels not being applied consistently.ย Non-theists sometimes describe themselves as โrationalistsโ, โrealistsโ, โscepticsโ, โhumanistsโ or โsecularistsโ.ย However, they all reside in the โempiricist boxโ (see Part 1).
On the other hand, โI donโt knowโ is often a cover for โI donโt careโ.ย It seems strange not to care that there might be Someone who made the cosmos and is in touch with humanity, but we continue to hear โIโll cross that bridge when I get to itโ.
At risk of stating the obvious, a conversation with a non-theist is not a conversation with the embodiment of some ideas but with a fabulously complex and unique human being who is in Godโs image and likeness, is loved by God, is in humanityโs shared predicament and has an irrefutable claim on everyoneโs love.
